verse_and_dimensionsfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:The Box/@comment-39961779-20191004234907/@comment-32364874-20200103122143
"Last sentences of her definition definitely superior than TTG. " I really hate these kinds of word play fights but for some reason felt compelled to repply to this... damn. The last sentence you are referring to, at the best, and most likely, makes her/it/whatever equal to TTG. Creating new more powerful things is not just a matter of putting up more words together to say the same thing but just with more words. Saying all is enough. Saying all fiction and all reality does not add anitying to just saying all. If one space includes everything and another includes all fiction and all reality, the second one is not larger than the first. At best it is equal. In the same way, a character that is all powerful is already as powerful as can be. Having another character that is all powerful in this way and that and that is all powerful in relation to this and that is not more powerful than the first, at beast it is equal to it. Saying all is always enough because all means all. (And this should be my new freaking catch phrase.) Suggs never understood what omnipotency really means or chose to ignore it, either one or another. He chose to use the word omnipotency to mean a lesser more ignorant understanding of what that word trully means and that was the only way he was able to go above omnipotency in power scale. Then he went around saying he was able to beat omnipotency. That's just BS. Whatever is the most powerful being he created is either omnipotency or below it. All the others on that list as just lower and lower than that. Even on this wiki, the omnipotency hierarchy is mostly bs. There is nothing above true omnipotency. What the hierarchy did was lowering the meaning of omnipotency to be something closer to it but not trully it and get closer and closer to it as one goes up in the hierarchy but just calling it slightly different words like omnipotency ^2 and so on. Basically what I'm saying is that the word omnipotency already does mean true omnipotency by itself. Using it to mean that there is omnipotency < something else < true omnipotency is just disengineous. Otherwise all words loose their meaning and we need to prefix each and every word with the prefix "true" to mean what the word by itself should already mean. As in, ya, this is not just what I mean but what I trully mean!!!! DUH If one wants to talk about something that looks like omnipotency but is not really omnipotency, it is than that it should be prefixed with a quasi-omnipotency or false-omnipotency or something like that. Keep the meaning of the word as is and use a prefix when it is being changed to something else, not the other way around. If one has character A that is omnipotent, and then character B that is more powerful than character A that is already proof enough to say that character A was not trully omnipotent or that the author does not understand the meaning of the word at all. Or maybe both. And this is why Suggs is basically BS :P